Re: [INDEP] Re: comments on draft-klensin-independent-05.txt

[Bob Braden <braden at ISI.EDU>]

  *> 
  *> Bob,
  *> 
  *> Maybe there is a middle ground here.  Maybe.
  *> 
  *> Even before you were submitting everything to the IESG before
  *> internal review, the rule (which I think is still in 2026, but I
  *> may have lost track of sequencing) was that the RFC Editor would
  *> decide what documents needed to be reviewed by the IESG.  After
  *> a few episodes in which the IESG decided, post-publication, that
  *> they would have preferred to see some documents that they
  *> didn't, things shifted to "everything goes to the IESG".
  *> 
  *> Perhaps the middle ground would be to combine that original idea
  *> with Jari's suggestion and the current procedure, leaving us
  *> with:
  *> 
  *> 	* When a document comes in, the RFC Editor performs a
  *> 	preliminary review and makes a determination as to
  *> 	whether it seems likely that the IESG will have strong
  *> 	opinions on the document.   
  *> 	
  *> 	* If "yes", then the document goes to the IESG, both as
  *> 	a 3932 review and in the hope of eliciting comments from
  *> 	the IESG (or ADs as individuals) that will make the
  *> 	review and editing process more efficient.
  *> 	
  *> 	* If no, then the sequence outlined in the I-D is
  *> 	followed, i.e., RFC Editor review and at least some
  *> 	editing first, then 3932 review by the IESG.
  *> 
  *> Or even better, the RFC Editor decides when, in the document
  *> processing cycle, to initiate the RFC 3932 review: before the Ed
  *> Board sees it, in the middle of Ed Board review if someone notes
  *> that there is a relevant active WG that would probably need to
  *> be involved, before or after [semi-]final editing, etc.
  *> 

This might work; worth some further careful thought.

  *> That might be more efficient from everyone's standpoint than
  *> requiring either a "early" or "late" IESG review for every case.
  *> And, of course, earlier rejection of documents that aren't going
  *> anywhere free up resources for faster processing and editing of
  *> documents that will be published.
  *> 
  *> With regard to the "independent" I-D, and noting that I'm
  *> writing as an individual, not as Editor, it seems to me that
  *> this dialog suggests that we should be making the document less
  *> specific, rather than more specific, about steps to be followed
  *> and the order in which they are applied.  The right way to

Yes, that seems to be the implication.  The doc should there MUST be
a 3932 review, leaving it up to the RFC Editor as to when in the process
it happens.  That seems to cover all cases.

  *> resolve these issues, IMnvHO, is periodic discussion between the
  *> RFC Editor and the IESG about whether the "what gets sent early"
  *> bar is being set too high or too low and regular recalibration
  *> of that filter.    All we do by overspecifying that sort of
  *> situation is to tie people's hands and prevent good things from
  *> happening smoothly and efficiently.
  *> 
  *>      john
  *> 

Sure, we have been fine-tuning this stuff since 1999, and I am
sure we are not done yet!

Bob


_______________________________________________
INDEPENDENT mailing list
INDEPENDENT at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent